A Letter Regarding Native Graph Databases by Matthias Broecheler.
From the post:
It’s fun to watch marketers create artificial distinctions between products that grab consumer attention. One of my favorite examples is Diamond Shreddies. Shreddies, a whole wheat cereal, has a square shape and was always displayed as such. So an ingenious advertiser at Kraft foods thought to advertise a new and better Diamond Shreddies. It’s a fun twist that got people’s attention and some consumers even proclaimed that Diamond Shreddies tasted better though they obviously ate the same old product.
Such marketing techniques are also used in the technology sector — unfortunately, at a detriment to consumers. Unlike Kraft’s playful approach, there are technical companies that attempt to “educate” engineers on artificial distinctions as if they were real and factual. An example from my domain is the use of the term native graph database. I recently learned that one graph database vendor decided to divide the graph database space into non-native (i.e. square) and native (i.e. diamond) graph databases. Obviously, non-native is boring, or slow, or simply bad and native is exciting, or fast, or simply good.
Excellent push back against vendor hype on graph databases.
As well written as it is, people influenced by graph database hype are unlikely to read it.
I suggest you read it so you can double down if you encounter a graph fraudster.
False claims about graph databases benefits the fraudster at the expense of the paradigm.
That’s not a good outcome.
[…] second story (see also A Letter Regarding Native Graph Databases) I have heard in two days based upon an unnamed vendor trash talking other graph […]
Pingback by Scalable Property and Hypergraphs in RDF « Another Word For It — November 6, 2013 @ 8:28 pm